Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 06, 2015, 04:50:22 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
88786 Posts in 2286 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 93
3551  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Humiliation of the Supreme Court Justices on: January 28, 2010, 02:44:09 PM
Bama stands there and talks about time to end partisanship during the same speech he stands atop the mountain looking down at Supreme Court Justices and literally insults/embarrasses them with Dems applauding in front of the entire nation.

Yeah right - he is bipartisan.

Even Toobin who is no conservative has to grimmace at the shameful moment: 

Jeffrey Toobin
 Alito's reaction to Obama was fairBy Jeffrey Toobin, CNN Senior Legal Analyst
January 28, 2010 2:38 p.m. EST

Jeffrey Toobin says a comment by President Obama led to an awkward moment
He says Justice Samuel Alito seemed to disagree on Obama's take on campaign finance ruling
Toobin says Obama was mostly right on the result of recent court decision
He says Alito also was right to express his view; justices are human beings
Editor's note: Jeffrey Toobin is a CNN senior legal analyst and a staff writer at The New Yorker. A former assistant U.S. attorney, Toobin is the author of several critically acclaimed best-sellers, including "The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court" and "Too Close to Call: The 36-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election."

New York (CNN) -- It was the most vivid, and unexpected, confrontation of Wednesday's State of the Union address.

It happened when President Obama said this: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."

In the audience, Justice Samuel Alito, President Bush's second appointee to the Supreme Court, could be seen shaking his head and saying, it appeared, "Not true, not true."

Who's right? As for what the court decided in Citizens United v. FEC, Obama seems to be right -- mostly. In a 5-4 decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Alito, the court held that corporations, labor unions and other organizations had the right under the First Amendment to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcomes of elections.

Video: Dissenting justice?
Barack Obama
Samuel Alito
U.S. Supreme Court
If a corporation now wants to saturate the airwaves for or against any candidate for office, including on the eve of the election, it now has the Supreme Court's say-so to do it.

Obama was on shakier ground when he said foreign companies now had the same unlimited rights to participate in our elections. The court's opinion very carefully said it was not deciding the issue with regard to foreign entities. So the court may yet give the green light to these foreign companies -- but it hasn't done so yet.

On the larger question of whether Alito should have expressed himself in this restrained but unmistakable way, I'm with the justice. Attending the State of the Union has always been an awkward duty for the justices -- sitting through these political addresses and wondering when it's appropriate to applaud or react.

Gloves come off after Obama rips ruling

When the president is paying tribute to the armed forces, or making an otherwise uncontroversial point, the justices usually join in the clapping; when the point is more political -- like the one Obama made about Citizens United on Wednesday -- the tradition is for the justices not to react.

But it's wise to remember that the justices are human beings, with strong views on many subjects, including their own decisions. When Obama was criticizing the court's work (as was his right), Alito had the right to react the way anyone would who had taken a shot in a high-profile setting.

In my book, even a Supreme Court justice -- even at the State of the Union -- is entitled to grimace and mutter. (It is worth noting that Alito does seem to have an ax to grind with Obama. As a senator, Obama voted against Alito's confirmation, which the justice does not seem to have forgotten. When the President-elect Obama made a courtesy call on the justices shortly before his inauguration last year, Alito was the only member of the court not to attend.)

Still, it's worth remembering who is likely to have the last word in this confrontation. In his speech, Obama went on to say about the court's opinion, "Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

The president and the Congress can try -- but it is the court that will have the last word on evaluating whether any new law is constitutional. And Alito, who is 59 years old with life tenure, will likely be passing on the validity of laws long after Obama has left office.

As Justice Robert Jackson said of the court many years ago, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jeffrey Toobin.
3552  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Can Pelosi Reid Bama pull it off? on: January 26, 2010, 01:48:30 PM
The triumvarite's efforts continue:

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 01.25.2010 Highly informed sources on Capitol Hill have revealed to me details of the Democratic plan to sneak Obamacare through Congress, despite collapsing public approval for healthcare “reform” and disintegrating congressional support in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.

President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all have agreed to the basic framework of the plan.

Their plan is clever but can be stopped if opponents of radical healthcare reform act quickly and focus on a core group of 23 Democratic Congressman. If just a few of these 23 Democrats are “flipped” and decide to oppose the bill, the whole Obama-Pelosi-Reid stratagem falls apart.

Here’s what I learned top Democrats are planning to implement.

Senate Democrats will go to the House with a two-part deal.

First, the House will pass the Senate’s Obamacare bill that passed the Senate in December. The House leadership will vote on the Senate bill, and Pelosi will allow no amendments or modifications to the Senate bill.

How will Pelosi’s deal fly with rambunctious liberal members of her majority who don’t like the Senate bill, especially its failure to include a public option, put heavy fines on those who don’t get insurance, and offering no income tax surcharge on the “rich”?

That’s where the second part of the Pelosi-deal comes in.

Behind closed doors, Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members — but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.

This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate’s Democratic caucus that they will make “fixes” to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama’s John Hancock.

But you may ask what about the fact that, without Republican Scott Brown and independent Democrats such as Joe Lieberman, Reid simply doesn’t have the 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster that typically can stop major legislation?

According to my source, Reid will provide to Pelosi a letter signed by 52 Democratic senators indicating they will pass the major changes, or “fixes,” the House Democrats are demanding. Again, these fixes will be approved by the Senate only after Obama signs the Senate bill into law.

Reid also has agreed to bypass Senate cloture and filibuster rules and claim that these modifications fall under “reconciliation” and don’t require 60 Senate votes.

To pass the fixes, he won’t need one Republican; he won’t even need Joe Lieberman or wavering Democrats such as Jim Webb of Virginia.

His 52 pledged senators give him a simple majority to pass any changes they want, which will later be rubberstamped by Pelosi’s House and signed by Obama.

This plan, of course, is a total subversion of the legislative process.

Typically, the Senate and House pass their own unique legislation and then both bills go to a conference committee. In conference, the leadership of both Democrat-dominated houses wheels and deals and irons out differences.

The final compromise bill is then sent back to the full Senate and full House for a vote and has to pass both to go to the president.

In the House, a simple majority passes the legislation. But under Senate rules, major legislation requires 60 votes to end a filibuster.

As it stands, the House bill and Senate bill have major discrepancies. Reid does not have 60 votes to pass a compromise bill that would no doubt include some of the radical provisions House members have been demanding.

But if the House passes the exact Senate bill that passed by a 60-39 Senate vote last month, there is no need for a conference on the bill. It will go directly to the president’s desk.

There is a rub to all of this.

This secret plan being hatched by Pelosi and Reid requires not only a pledge by 52 Democratic senators to vote later for the House modifications. House liberals must actually believe these Senators will live up to their pledge and pass the fixes at some future date.

A Senate source cautions: “Senators more than House members and both more than ordinary people, lie.”

Still, my Senate source and others in Washington believe that the liberals in the House, grasping at straws after the stunning Massachusetts defeat, will go along with the Reid-Pelosi plan to bypass a conference bill and ultimately will vote for the Senate version without changes.

Among the key “fixes” House liberals are demanding the Senate pass in reconciliation at some later date include a “carve out” for unions from the “Cadillac policy” insurance tax. The Senate plan funds their healthcare plan by heavy taxes on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans that provide those insured with exceptionally good coverage including almost unlimited health access with little or no co-payments. The Senate’s view was that rich people have such plans and should be taxed for them to pay the less fortunate.

But many unions have Cadillac plans for their members, and they are furious their members will be hit with the Senate tax. The unions have told their minions in the House to oppose the Senate Cadillac plan tax.

House liberals also are requiring a fix that increases fines for those who flout the law and don’t buy health insurance (the Pelosi-passed plan includes criminal penalties, including possible jail time if a person doesn’t purchase insurance). Another fix will raise subsidies for low-income families seeking to buy insurance.

In the original House bill that passed, healthcare expansion costs would have been paid for by an income tax surcharge on the “rich.” House liberals are pushing for that fix as well.

So what is the counter-move? How do opponents of Obamacare stop this?

Opponents cannot rely on liberal Democrats in the House who might balk at passing the Senate bill with just a “pledge” from 52 senators. I have no doubt House liberals, despite their skepticism, will fade under pressure from Pelosi and Obama. They will do their duty and pass the Senate bill, whatever their current posturing.

Instead, the key to stopping the Pelosi-Reid plan lies with conservative or “moderate” Democrats who voted for the healthcare bill the first time.

There are 23 of these conservative-leaning Democratic House members who voted for Pelosi’s Obamacare back in November, which passed by just five votes, with 39 Democrats defecting to vote against the bill.

All 23 of these congressmen who did vote for the Pelosi bill are extremely vulnerable.

Opponents of Obamacare need to climb all over these 23 congressmen with TV ads and advocacy campaigns in their districts to get them to change their vote this time, to vote “no” to the Senate bill when it comes before the House.

Voters need to say, “You voted for Obamacare the first time. But your district opposes it by 2 to 1. Now it is coming up for a vote again. Listen to your constituents and vote no. We don’t want Medicare cuts or premium increases or rationing of medical care. Don’t monkey with our healthcare. Vote no this time.”

Since the House healthcare bill passed by five votes, much has happened and the political landscape has changed dramatically.

The Massachusetts election of a Republican to Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat has sent shock waves through Washington. Every one of these 23 Democrats knows they will face an angry backlash in their districts if they vote for the Senate bill and go along with Pelosi-Reid plan to ram through Obamacare.

I believe now is the time for opponents to act. The truth is that Obamacare is hanging by a thread.

Opponents, if they move now, can drive a stake through its heart.

Once these congressmen hear from their aroused constituents, they won’t be able to back Obamacare.

As I mentioned, the Pelosi health bill passed the House by only 220-215. Nancy Pelosi knows she has no margin for error.

If only a handful of these 23 congressmen change their vote under public pressure, the Pelosi-Reid plan is stopped and Obamacare is dead.

Click here to help fund ads in the districts of these swing Congressmen.

Jan 25 2010 | Category: Dick's Articles | 10 Comments
Copyright © 2010*****   
3553  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: January 25, 2010, 12:33:39 PM
Here is the website noted as the source.  There is also a link to "the evidence" of their claims though I don't have time to peruse that at the moment.

The flipside to the argument is if Bama/Pelosi/Reid care were to go through catastropic injuries might not be covered at all due to risk/benefit/cost ratios don't make it worthwhile.  Esp. if one is over a certain age.

In my experience ER care is usually covered and not denied but not always.  If the writer wants us to believe care is rationed now the answer is correct.  If the writer wants us to think it won't under the Dem plan he or she is incorrect.
3554  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: January 25, 2010, 10:36:18 AM
Well reading drudge this am leads me to believe Bama will not "triangulate" ala Clinton.
As noted the populist bent:  its the banks stupid.
                                        its the corporations stupid
                                        middle class tax "cuts" for child care and elderly care - if one believes this.
A "bipartisan commission to study the deficit - this certainly reminds me of Jimmy the Carter who was overwhelmed with the job and would ceaselessly study details without being able to move in the right direction.  Of course this could just be a smoke screen for inaction.  Like we'll "study" legal reform in the health industry when in reality he really has NO intention of doing any of it.

This guy is not as wise as Clinton.  Clinton thus remains the best manipulator of his generation - some call this the best politician though I still feel honesty is necessary.

The drudgereprots could be just trial balloons but if they are correct and this guy takes this course the Dems are really screwed.

What was the name of the captain of the Titanic?  Captain Bama?
3555  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: January 24, 2010, 03:33:55 PM
The good news is drudgereport already highlights OBama/Dem proposal to have "deficit reducing task force".
And Bama may put caps on spending.
The bad news is the same.  History has already proven a sudden reversal in course could completly let Bama off the hook ala Clinton.
It appears moderates are happy to forgive and forget baseed on what the politician says THAT day.
We will know on Jan 27th.

One SOTU speech was all it took to bring Clinton right back into the game.
Apparently enough of the voters can be fooled enough of the time for the rest of us to be duped again.
3556  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: January 23, 2010, 09:46:21 AM
Did anyone else see clips of Obama literally ranting and raving against the banks and the phrase for the ages, "we want our money back"?

I am no defender of banks who certainly do rip us off.  That said all I could think of during this ridiculous rant was, why YOU (Obama) were the idiot who gave them the money!  You were the one who gave the money with apparently little oversight!

If the fact that our future, our economy was not hanging on a cliff I would say his rant had me laughing out loud.  Here is the guy using banks to score political favor with voters - and he is the same clown who was the one who couldn't give them enough money.  It is still possible for him to turn things around like Clinton.  I remember agreeing with the incredulity of Rush who was amazed that Clinton could make a SINGLE state of the union address and literally overnight improve his poll ratings by double digits.
So it is certaily possible. But this guy will obviously throw anyone under the bus to save his own hide has no record of being Clinton.

Time will tell.   I am not optomistic about the future of this country.  I won't post it here but I do agree with a guy with the initials PB who wrote one recent article that the collapse or bankruptcy of the US *may* be inevitable.
3557  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: January 21, 2010, 05:30:18 PM
I felt like we were going to the gallows and at one minute before the switch was to be pulled the governor calls and grants a pardon.  I was even wondering what GS level I would start at. 
The only pity is we still have three years left for JC 2.
A culture of government doles won't get this country back on its feet.

*****Jewish World Review January 21, 2010

Democrats on the precipice of failure

By George Will |

"We are on the precipice of an achievement that's eluded Congresses and presidents for generations."

-- President Barack Obama, Dec. 15, on health-care legislation

Precipice, 1. a headlong fall or descent, esp. to a great depth -- Oxford English Dictionary

Trying to guarantee Americans the thrill of the precipice, the president dashed to Massachusetts on Sunday, thereby conceding that he had already lost Tuesday's Senate election, which had become a referendum on his signature program. By promising to cast the decisive 41st vote against the president's health-care legislation, the Republican candidate forced all congressional Democrats to contemplate this: Not even frenzied national mobilization of Democratic manpower and millions of dollars could rescue one of the safest Democratic seats in the national legislature from national dismay about the incontinent government expansion, of which that legislation is symptomatic.


  Every weekday publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

Because the legislation is frightening and unpopular, Democrats have had to resort to serial bribery to advance it. Massachusetts voted immediately after the corruption of exempting, until 2018, union members from the tax on high-value health insurance plans. This tax was supposedly the crucial component of what supposedly was reform's primary goal: reducing costs.

The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) thought Bill Clinton's presidency was crippled by the 1993 decision to pursue health-care reform rather than welfare reform. So slight was public enthusiasm for the former that Clinton's program never even came to a vote in the House or Senate, both controlled by Democrats. There was such fervor for welfare reform that in 1996, after two Clinton vetoes, he finally signed the decade's most important legislation.

In their joyless, tawdry slog toward passage of their increasingly ludicrous bill, Democrats now cling grimly to Robert Frost's axiom that "the best way out is always through." Their sole remaining reason for completing the damn thing is that they started it. The Democrats seem to have convinced themselves that they lost control of Congress in 1994 because they did not pass an unpopular health bill in 1993. Actually, their 1994 debacle had more to do with the arrogance and malfeasance arising from 40 years of control of the House of Representatives (e.g., the House banking scandal), a provocative crime bill (gun control, federal subsidies for midnight basketball) and other matters.

With one piece of legislation, President Obama and his congressional allies have done in one year what it took President Lyndon Johnson and his allies two years to do in 1965 and 1966 -- revive conservatism. Today, conservatism is rising on the steppingstones of liberal excesses.

Between FDR's reprimand by voters in the 1938 midterm congressional elections (partly because of his anti-constitutional plan to enlarge and pack the Supreme Court) and LBJ's 1964 trouncing of Barry Goldwater, there was no liberal legislating majority in Congress: Republicans and conservative Democrats combined to temper liberalism's itch to overreach. In 1965 and 1966, however, liberalism was rampant. Today, Democrats worrying about a reprise of 1994 should worry more about a rerun of the 1966 midterm elections, which began a Republican resurgence that presaged victories in seven of the next 10 presidential elections.

The 2008 elections gave liberals the curse of opportunity, and they have used it to reveal themselves ruinously. The protracted health-care debacle has highlighted this fact: Some liberals consider the legislation's unpopularity a reason to redouble their efforts to inflict it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to understand that their betters know best. The essence of contemporary liberalism is the illiberal conviction that Americans, in their comprehensive incompetence, need minute supervision by government, which liberals believe exists to spare citizens the torture of thinking and choosing.

Last week, trying to buttress the bovine obedience of most House Democrats, Obama assured them that if the bill becomes law, "the American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like." Suddenly?

If the Democrats' congressional leaders are determined to continue their kamikaze flight to incineration, they will ignore Massachusetts's redundant evidence of public disgust. They will leaven their strategy of briberies with procedural cynicism -- delaying certification of Massachusetts's Senate choice, or misusing "reconciliation" to evade Senate rules, or forcing the House to swallow its last shred of pride in order to rush the Senate bill to the president's desk. Surely any such trickery would be one brick over a load for some hitherto servile members of the Democratic House and Senate caucuses, giving them an excuse to halt their party's Gadarene rush toward the precipice.*****
3558  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The Power of Word on: January 21, 2010, 03:06:00 PM
"These have been difficult days for me to pray. Somehow, watching the images of the utter devastation and chaos has placed a trace of cynicism in my heart, a cynicism that pierces the words I say, shattering them into individual letters."

It has been a sight to behold those survivors being pulled from the wreckage explaining how they never gave up hope, they felt they would be saved all along - thanks to God.

One questions how can there be a God when we witness such evil.  Yet one understands the phrase, "the power of prayer" after seeing how many Haitains have dealt with their lot.
3559  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Left spin - is astonishing in its self delusion on: January 20, 2010, 10:28:12 AM
From Huffington.  The left spin.  It is not that Bama is too radical left or a counter revolutionary like the "fringe right" put forth, it is simply he has been willing to compromise too much, he is not left enough, he is not shoving his agenda through enough.  So goes the spin and self delusion of the left - the core crats.

You gotta love this one:
"Yet Obama has undoubtedly created a different climate in Washington -- one based on reasonable discussion and debate". (as long as you support his radical counter revolution)

One can only hope the Bama will not turn into Bill Clinton and will continue to deceive the voters like he has been doing while behind the scenes doing his real life's dream.  Only then IMHO will we eventually see his popularity go to Jimmy Carter levels where it belongs.
***Obama's First Year: High Hopes, Harsh Reality
      Tue Jan 19, 10:12 pm ET
President Barack Obama's victory walk down Pennsylvania Avenue after his swearing-in last January was probably the last time he's been able to breathe easy and just enjoy himself.

Since then, the 44th president of the United States has been on a roller coaster ride even more turbulent than the usual collision with reality experienced by his predecessors in their first years. Though Obama remains popular with a majority of Americans, he's been battered by obstructionist Republicans, vilified by Tea Party activists and condemned by disappointed progressives. And his biggest legislative agenda -- health care reform -- has been stripped of its essential elements on its way through Congress.

Obama's fate will largely be determined by the state of the economy, with rising unemployment and the bailout of the country's biggest banks fueling bipartisan outrage. By continuing Bush's unpopular TARP program to give trillions to financial institutions that helped cause the financial crisis and surrounding himself with economic advisers allied with Wall Street, the president has angered both conservatives and liberals. And since his stimulus and mortgage modification programs have failed to stem, respectively, the unemployment and foreclosure rates, a growing number of Americans feel that Obama's policies favor Wall Street over Main Street. The president's push for financial regulatory reform, including the creation of a consumer finance protection agency, is in danger of being substantially weakened in Congress.

The other major issue that looms over the administration -- and it's also one inherited from the previous administration -- is the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan and the president's decision to increase the amount of U.S. troops in that lethal conflict. As American and Afghan casualties mount, more voices in both parties are raising concerns about the necessity of the war and express the fear that the U.S. will be doomed to fighting in Afghanistan for many years to come.

In addition, in the wake of the national security system's failure to prevent the botched Christmas Day airline bombing by a Yemeni-trained jihadist, national security concerns are taking on a bigger role in the fate of the administration. Though Obama has succeeded in changing the tone on national security and outlining a new multilateral approach to foreign affairs, his administration's decision to continue many Bush-era policies -- from warrantless surveillance to refusing to release information on past detainee policies -- has raised eyebrows among those who voted for him. This Friday marks the date by which Obama promised last January to close Guantanamo, but the facility remains nowhere near being shut down.

Yet Obama has undoubtedly created a different climate in Washington -- one based on reasonable discussion and debate -- and expressed a desire to work with the international community, as he has eloquently articulated in his speeches abroad. On national security, the president has largely made decisions through thoughtful consideration of the different perspectives rather than the stubbornly instinctive decisions of his predecessor. On the environment, his administration represents a radical change from the Bush era and has resurrected important regulations that were dismantled by the previous president. Despite criticism that health care reform has been watered down by industry interests and political deal-making, the very fact that the issue is being taken seriously in the Oval Office after years of inertia and is on the cusp of insuring millions of low-income Americans is, in itself, a victory.

Will Obama fulfill the promise of his presidency, learn from his rookie mistakes and have the courage to make the tough decisions needed to move the country forward? Or will he favor compromise over leadership, squander his popularity and cave to the powerful interests gathered against him? It's all up to him -- and to Americans to push him to make the right decisions.

Related blogs: Jody Johnson: Obama One Year Later: Remembering the Images of History in the Making, Saul Friedman: Gray Matters: Grading Obama

Read More: Obama Administration, Obama Afghanistan, Obama Financial Crisis, Obama First Year, Obama Guantanamo, Obama Inauguration, Obama White House, President Obama


Follow HuffingtonPost on Twitter
3560  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: January 20, 2010, 10:16:10 AM
I still don't know why three quarters still like a man as dishonest about who he is, his real agenda, and his counter revolution.
It is amazing to watch the Dems circle the wagons around him.  No matter what the election in Mass, Virginia and NJ is about everything BUT the chosen one.  That 48 % still approve of his job is still too high for a man who is set on a course and lifes journey and making our country into a socialist or facsist state.  People still don't get it, or they agree with it, or they don't care as long as they get more and more government benefits.

I don't think his state of the union speech will have any surprises but be full of endless spin.  He will continue to paint himself as one of "us" though he is clearly a career long counter revolutionary as Levin/Beck point out. 

****Three-quarters said they liked Mr. Obama, who put his political capital on the line by campaigning for fellow Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. But just 22% said they were "optimistic and confident" about his presidency—a 10-point decline from a year ago. By comparison, 27% were "pessimistic and worried" about his presidency, compared with just 9% a year ago, when many hoped he would lead the nation into an economic recovery.

Overall, 48% said they approved of the job Mr. Obama is doing, while 43% disapproved—about the same as last month but down sharply from approval ratings in the 60% range in his early months in office.****

I could be wrong but I am less clear that there is evolving any mandate for strict conservativism as Hannity et al would like us to believe. Not that I am necessarily against it but just that I don't think that is a long term winning formula.

What exactly does the tea party stand for?  There is something I think about this that is where the future may lie.

3561  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: January 19, 2010, 09:42:10 AM
You can't be serious.  Does anyone think this would happen if these were potential Republican voters?  Now we are establishing a trend.  What about the next time there is an earthquake in Mexico City?  Does anyone in Florida have a say in this?  No coincidence it is a state that Dems need to get to blue.  I feel terrible looking at the cable dramas but this is my opinion is nuts but not surprising.  Never let a catastrophy go to waste -

***ORLANDO, Fla. -- The American Red Cross says a plan to bring 45,000 evacuees from Haiti to Florida, and 4,000 of those to Orange County, is not set in stone. The Red Cross clarified Friday who could be involved in a plan to move people out of Haiti.

The Red Cross is preparing for two things: the repatriation of Americans living in Haiti and the possibility of a mass migration of Haitian nationals.
The American Red Cross has seen massive migration into the U.S. from areas like Kosovo and Bosnia in the past, but no determination has been made yet in the case of Haiti. But the repatriation of Americans has already begun. Eyewitness News was told that it includes people like missionaries who may have already been working in Haiti before the quake.

The U.S. citizens are being brought into South Florida through Miami and Homestead, where their identities can be verified. Thursday night, five flights arrived with 190 Americans on board.

“I think that we will continue see U.S. citizens coming in over the weekend and through the beginning of next week. And that would be our first focus and first wave and, I think, as the conditions are assessed in Haiti and some decisions are made both with our federal government and the Haitian government about what’s best for their citizens,” Director of Emergency Services Becky Sebren said.

Americans continued to arrive in South Florida Friday afternoon and, as the United States plans its strategy to help Haiti, the state closest to the island nation is taking center stage with a plan to bring tens of thousands of refugees to Florida and approximately 4,000 to Orlando.

Orange County Mayor Rich Crotty says he has some concerns with the possible plan. If Haitians are brought to Central Florida, the county, city and possibly other area communities will have to scramble to figure out where to put the earthquake victims, and it will be a tough challenge.

"It would occur to me that there is a legal process associated with that and it would probably have to come through the State Department in terms of citizenship and visas, work visas [and] that sort of thing," Mayor Crotty said.

What that influx of people brings with it is a very large service demand, particularly in the area of social services in what is already a tough economy.

"We're very stressed financially right now and this is going to add to that stress," Mayor Crotty said. "So this is a balance we're going to have to work on strengthening."

Governor Charlie Crist told Eyewitness News Friday that, while he's talked to the Secretary of Homeland Security about bringing Haitians to Florida, nothing has been decided at this point.

Governor Crist was at a jobs summit in Orlando Friday morning. Crist wouldn't confirm whether Haitian refugees would be coming to Central Florida; he did say that Florida has pledged to do everything it can to help those in need after the earthquake.

"We want to be in touch with the State Department, making sure we're doing what is necessary for these people to get the help they need and deserve," Crist said.

Governor Crist said, because of mild hurricane seasons for the past several years, there are a lot of relief supplies available in Florida. He said some of those supplies will be used to help Haitians in need.

Additionally, the State of Florida has opened a new emergency information hotline about the Haiti quake. It's meant to give Floridians a link to informational resources on the international response and recovery efforts.***
3562  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "the People’s Republic of Massachusetts" on: January 18, 2010, 07:11:43 PM
It is hard not to agree that should Brown win tomorrow it would be in my opinion the most stunning political upset in memory.
It is also encouraging in that it shows me at least it is not too late to stop the liberal agenda before it is too late.

Morris does seem to suggest Reconciliation is to be used for "budget reasons" and appears to be more of a bluff then anything else.

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 01.18.2010 Beyond a pleasing sight for the heart, what would Ted Kennedy’s seat going Republican really mean?

A lot.

First, there would be the psychological effect. On Democratic donors — it would discourage them from opening their checkbooks. On Republican donors — the impact would be electric in kindling their interest and generosity. On Democratic incumbents seeking re-election — it would make the beaches and golf courses that await them in their Florida retirement homes (and the lucrative lobbying jobs in Washington) infinitely more attractive. On Republicans considering running for the House and the Senate — it will help them see the truth: That their time is at hand! (It might even help our esteemed Party Chairman Michael Steele, realize that we can capture both houses this year!)

But in the Senate itself, it would really signal the end of Obama’s legislative dominance. He’ll probably be able to pass health care either by Democratic dithering in certifying Brown’s election or by ramming through the bill while he’s en route to Washington on the shuttle.

But, beyond that, the prospects of getting 60 votes on the remaining items in Obama’s legislative agenda: cap and trade, union card check, and immigration reform would slip away with the Massachusetts result.

He cannot govern through reconciliation (passing bills with 51 votes by pretending they are just budget bills). If it were that easy, why would Harry Reid have worked so hard - and so successfully - to bribe Senators Landrieu (D-La), Lincoln (D-Ark) and Nelson (D-Neb)? Why would he have caved in to the demands of Connecticut’s Joseph Lieberman and discarded the public option much to the chagrin of his House colleagues?

A victory for Scott Brown would represent the Gettysburg of the Obama Administration - its high water mark, its tipping point.

But even more corrosive for Obama and the Democrats is the knowledge that nobody is safe from Republican assault. If the GOP can win a Senate seat in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, it can win anywhere, anytime, against anyone. Long term Democratic incumbents from largely Republican districts would have to rethink their loyalty to Reid and Pelosi. Particularly in the House, it will be ever more difficult to round up majorities for Administration bills. Politicians will start running for cover and hiding in the cloakrooms.

Democrats will try to spin their defeat by blaming their candidate, Martha Coakley, for not campaigning hard enough. They will say that they lost because their base did not turn out and that the solution is to pass ever more radical legislation in the hopes of rekindling their fervor. But losing Massachusetts, on top of Virginia and New Jersey, will convince even the most loyal Democrat that the handwriting is, indeed, on the wall.

For all of these reasons, please make an effort today to telephone or e-mail any friends, family or colleagues you know in Massachusetts to urge them to come out and vote for Scott Brown. There is so very much at stake!

3563  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: January 17, 2010, 02:51:47 PM
"On Tuesday, we'll have a reading on whether that complacency is justified. It may not be definitive; barely two in 10 voters voted in the primaries, and turnout, especially if it is short on independents, could render the outcome a road test for each party's get-out-the-vote machinery."

Doesn't this make one think we will be seeing another close call with endless legal challenges and murky counts and who knows what other shenanigans?

This article points out union's ability to get out their voters. 

I don't know how many "union" votes there are in Mass. but then one could thus ask about the timing of the recent sweetheart deal the legislatures just gave to the unions for the Federal health care bill.

It may not have been a coincidence.

3564  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Resolution process on: January 16, 2010, 01:29:51 PM
We keep hearing the Dems threaten to use resolution process to ram through the health care bonanza with 51 Senate votes instead of the usual 60 needed for normal bills.

So what is this process?  If I read this correctly the process used multiple times since around 1980 (passed in 1974) is meant to *control* budgets not *explode* them with a takeover of one seventh of the economy.
3565  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: January 15, 2010, 12:23:48 PM
I don't know.  Is taking advantage of an endless stream of beautiful women offerring up everything to a healthy male an addiction, poor judgement or simply inability to say no to raging hormonal juices?

I guess if the psycho-babalists (who are happy to sell books, give therapy for this "ailment" in return for cash) can make a case that this behavior is some sort of disease for a healthy male to want to have sex with beautiful women than I guess it gives tiger an out too.

Frankly, if all men had this situation I think "sex addiction" would be as prevalent as obesity.

You know what a few have admitted about the fooling around that goes on in baseball.  Reports over the years have suggested very few baseball players don't have their girlfriends in the various cities.
3566  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government Programs, spending, budget process on: January 15, 2010, 10:41:31 AM
Well I guess the latest deal made between "law" makers and the unions involving their so called "cadillac plans" shows that donations to the Democrats pays off in great dividends and makes good business sense.

"Wall Street is a glutton for punishment".  There are the Soros of the world - the true believers etc but the rest is simply an investment in the party that holds power.  The NYC insiders know that DC has to do its political grandstading.  But the real deals are made in secret behind closed doors.   Their bribes work obviously.

There is no end to the outrage.  There never will be.
3567  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: January 15, 2010, 09:39:27 AM
This sound like....
Classic Clayton Christensian.
The 6'10" pituitary giant from Harvard and his "innovative disruption" that Gilder was so fond of.

There is no question the conservative talking heads are scared to death that the tea party will evolve/morph into a separate movement apart from the GOP.  The Hannities the Limbaughs the Levins are incensed at the idea the party will draw away from their power base.

I am not so sure I would mind if it did but more likely than not it would simply be shooting ourselves in the foot by *dividing* a group that would vote against Democrats.
3568  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The Power of Word on: January 13, 2010, 10:25:59 AM
I am glad I didn't offend you.  I didn't intend to although I could see how my angry post could have.
It says a lot about your character that you took it in stride.
Hopefully without being intrusive I do admit I am interested in your political views.
I may or may not agree.
But if I disagree I am still interested because I don't understand liberals, Jewish or not.
Perhaps if you are one you could help me understand the values.
I don't mean to burden you with this and you could just refuse.
On the other hand I think it is good for the message board if we have diversity of thought.
If we all simply agree than we cannot learn.
3569  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Humor/WTF on: January 12, 2010, 03:33:30 PM
While in the hospital discussing new regulations I joked I would go to the bathroom here so I don't have to waste a toilet flush at home and get taxed for a flush.
Someone countered it would be called the "crap tax".

Now I would call all taxes crappy but this is a first.
3570  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: January 12, 2010, 12:58:17 PM
"Public-sector unions have a growing influence in state and federal governments, and in the overall labor movement, but they are a relatively recent phenomenon"

I am glad someone else has posted this topic which I have noted before on this board.

I've asked a few times before why it makes sense that people who work for the government can turn around and unionize and tell elected officials how much they should make and benefits they should get.

Instead of serving us we are serving them.

I also posted about a patient of mine who retired last year from the NJ TPK "Authority" and then shows up in my office recently with a disability form.  I asked in honest amazement what he was talking about.  He was not disabled and indeed had been working till he voluntarily retired just before.  His answer was that a friend told him he could get more money this way than from retirement.

I asked was he claiming disability for his seizure disorder and he said yes.  I noted he hadn't had a seizure for many years and it never prevented him from working before.

I came right and told him flatly no I will not sign the form and this is why this country goes broke, this is why everyone hires illegals, or sends jobs overseas.  He agreed with me.

The concept that retirement is an entitlement the same as free speech, legal rights has got to go.

Double dipping is rampant.

Everyone knows that civil servant retirees who retire in their 50s go and get second jobs.  Some of these second jobs the proverbial double and triple dipping is rampant.

My Federal employee relatives love to speak of being able to retire soon.

Of course on the backs of those of us who work in the private sector.

Yet they are happily for health care for all, and all the rest of the liberal crap.  As always as long as they don't suffer for it.
If I hear them speak one more time about "green" this or that.....

3571  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: January 12, 2010, 10:24:23 AM
I found it fascinating to see Blacks on the cable shows vehemently disagreeing on Reid's comments.


I don't think I ever recall Blacks publically showing so much disagreement.

This proves they are not one block.

This proves they are willing to come out and publicaly disagree even when it is a Democrat they are speaking of.

Probably there are many who felt this way all along.  Perhaps it is only now we hear from so many more African Americans rather the darm MSM running and getting opinions from sharptons and Jacksons etc as though THEY speak for all Blacks.

If only Republicans can reach out to Blacks and LEGAL Latinos and convince them what I see as a truth that they are mistakenly letting the Democrat party hijack THEIR rights, their futures by giving it away to illegals and having  Pres who seems fit to down our country overseas and give away our soverienty to the UN, other nations, and his own delusions of megalomania.

The United States is their country too.  Not the governments.  Not the Democratic party.  Not Obama's.
It is not Obamas right to give us away.

If the Republicans can work on this type of approach then I believe we can win back Blacks to the party of Lincoln.

Why in the world are Blacks standing by and letting the Dems give away their country to illegals predominantly Latinos?

Wake up.
3572  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Mark McGuire on: January 11, 2010, 03:43:56 PM
Well at least he is honest.    He seems like a geniunely good person.  I remember someone telling me he was quite gracious signing an autograph for a young relative even while being asked/distrubed during dinner at a restaurant with his family (he reportedly has a brother bigger than him). 

The "steroid era" as he puts it, not only admits his but basically says steroid use was rampant among all/most players.

It may still be.  I don't know.

I used to be a big buff on baseball stats.  Should he be in the Hall.  I don't know.  He would have been a great home run hitter anyway (I think) though he certainly wouldn't have hit 70 any more than Sosa would have broken 60 or Bonds would have hit 73.

Now if only I could get the music industry admit to all the lies &they all sing stolen lyrics and they are all a bunch of lying low lives....Sorry, I am bitter...

****In a statement released by the St. Louis Cardinals, McGwire said that he began using steroids in the late 1980’s and used them “on occasion throughout the 1990’s,” including the 1998 season, when McGwire captivated the nation by hitting 70 home runs to break the all-time single season record of 61 held by Roger Maris.

McGwire’s statement comes as he prepares to return to baseball as the hitting coach for the Cardinals, the team he played for when he set the home run record.

“Now that I have become the hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals,” McGwire said, “I have the chance to do something that I wish I was able to do five years ago. I never knew when, but I always knew this day would come. It’s time for me to talk about the past and to confirm what people have suspected. I used steroids during my playing career and I apologize.”

McGwire said that he briefly used steroids in the off-season before the 1990 season and then resumed using them after he was injured in 1993. McGwire retired after an injury-marred 2001 season, in which he played in only 97 games and hit .187.

“I wish I had never touched steroids,” he said in the statement. “It was foolish and it was a mistake. I truly apologize. Looking back, I wish I had never played during the steroid era.”

McGwire is one of dozens of players from the past two decades who have been tied to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Last year it was revealed that Sammy Sosa, who dueled with McGwire for the home run record in 1998, tested positive for performance-enhancig drugs in 2003.

“I’m sure people will wonder if I could have hit all those home runs had I never taken steroids,” McGwire’s statement read. “I had good years when I didn’t take any and I had bad years when I didn’t take any. I had good years when I took steroids and I had bad years when I took steroids. But no matter what, I shouldn’t have done it and for that I’m truly sorry.”

McGwire’s statement confirmed what had widely assumed within baseball and what has damaged McGwire’s chances in the last four years of balloting for the Hall of Fame; in none of them, did he come anywhere near the number of votes he needed for induction.****
3573  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: January 11, 2010, 02:34:13 PM
Dylan Ratigan from MSNBC has been railing against Geitner like crazy.  Calling for his head on a platter.
I heard him on the radio yesterday.
Go to this site and click on AIG spot and listen:
3574  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary in 2016 she would be same age as RR on: January 11, 2010, 01:17:13 PM
"Two months ago, Mrs Clinton answered, straight-faced, with a flat "no" when asked if she would ever run for president again, even adding that "it never crosses my mind".

Well if we learned anything from the Clintons there is nothing they say that can be believed.

*****Home News World News North America USASmart money is on Hillary Clinton for 2016
Hillary Clinton was written off as a failed presidential candidate who would never have another run at the White House. Not any more, writes Toby Harnden in Washington.
Toby Harnden's American Way
Published: 6:33PM GMT 19 Dec 2009
 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Photo: EPA
Driving past the White House the other day, my eye was caught by the bumper sticker on the shiny black Toyota Prius in front of me. It read: "We love you Hillary - Clinton for President, 2016".

A year ago, I'd have snorted at the slogan and kept my distance from the vehicle - judging the driver to be a delusional Clintonite diehard still desperately fighting the reality that the former First Lady's presidential aspirations were history.

Barack Obama makes world believe in politics again, claims top DemocratNow, the person behind that wheel seems to be on the money. Having elected Barack Obama amid near national euphoria, America is experiencing something akin to buyer's remorse.

Obama's popularity is the lowest of any American president at the end of his first year in office since polling began. Yet as his approval ratings have nose-dived, those of his Secretary of State have curved elegantly upwards.

A recent poll by the Clarus Research Group found that Hillary Clinton had a 75 per cent approval rating compared to 51 per cent for the man who defeated her in their epic battle for the Democratic nomination.

These are very early days to handicap 2016 but it's already clear that she has gone from being the supposedly inevitable 2008 nominee who had blown her one big chance as odds-on favourite to be the next Democratic president.

When Mrs Clinton accepted the job of Secretary of State many of her supporters feared she was falling into a trap. Fearing that she could be a rival source of power from Capitol Hill, Obama calculated she would be less of a threat if he brought her inside his tent.

The downsides for the former First Lady were obvious. She would give up her cherished seat as Senator for New York, which gave her an independent power base. Her voice on domestic policy would be silenced.

And her fortunes would inevitably be linked to the man whom she fervently believed was not up to the top job.

It is a sign of Mrs Clinton's astuteness that she said yes and now finds herself ideally placed to succeed Mr Obama or, in the increasingly plausible scenario that he becomes a one-term president, the Republican who ousts him in 2012.

During the past year, Mrs Clinton has done just what she did when she entered the Senate in 2001 - knuckled down to the hard grind of policy while building relationships with wary sceptics.

The woman who was one of the most polarising figures in American politics now has a glowing 65 per cent approval rating among Independents and healthy 57 per cent among Republicans.

Even sworn enemies on the Right marvelled at her toughness in refusing to concede to Obama until the bitter end in the summer of 2008 and now view her as more hawkish than the president.

Mrs Clinton, moreover, has lived in Arkansas and won over conservatives in upstate New York as well as trouncing Obama in states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania - establishing a connection with Middle America that has eluded the president.

Though Obama trumpeted the notion that he was appointing a "team of rivals" to his Cabinet, Mrs Clinton has been instrumental in making his foreign policy team one of the most harmonious in memory by striking up a firm friendship with Robert Gates, the canny Defence Secretary chief held over from the Bush administration.

In the eight administrations Gates has served in, no two Pentagon and State Department heads have been as close. After the poisonous relations between advisers to Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, it is a startling turnaround.

The alliance between Clinton and Gates - who both argued for a robust troop increase from the outset - helped to stiffen Obama's spine over Afghanistan.

Mrs Clinton can afford to be assiduously loyal because her critique of Obama - "a lot of talk, no action" is how she acidly described him in March last year - is already out there and increasingly resonant. She now has unassailable credentials in the one area where she appeared weak in 2008 - foreign policy.

She has been able to stay out of the contentious debates over health care, Wall Street bailouts and the spiraling deficit while her husband, confounding many, has been a low-key apparent model of propriety since she took over at Foggy Bottom.

Two months ago, Mrs Clinton answered, straight-faced, with a flat "no" when asked if she would ever run for president again, even adding that "it never crosses my mind".

Perhaps that patently implausible denial was the surest indication of all that Mrs Clinton is better placed than ever to become America's first female president - and she knows it.*****
3575  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / yet the population is exploding on: January 11, 2010, 12:09:50 PM
""some 3.4 million more Americans moved from California to one of the other 49 states than moved to California from another state."

Well if this is true we must put this in context to the overall population of California.  NO ONE who has a brain would suggest the pop of California has gone down between 1990 and 2007.

Looking at the Census of 1990 the population was 29,760,021.  In 2000 it was 33,871,648.
A Census estimate for 2008 is 36,756,666.  Thus DESPITE NET 3.4 million people moving from California to another state than moving to California from another state the population has gone up roughly 7 million people.

So the conclusion is there are 3.4 million plus 7 million new people or 10.4 million NEW people in this state who must have:
1) been born there
2) come to California from another country

No one disputes the state is in complete financial trouble and on the verge of ruin. 

Yet we have the liberal and politically correct crowd who tell us there is a net economic gain (somehow) of immigration (legal and illegal).

How can any rational person reconcile the claims and the facts?

The vast majority of the increase in population in California MUST be from illegals and their offspring.  Based on Census own numbers there is no other explanation.  I doubt much of the increase is from legal immigration from other countries.

And it is highly unlikely the birth rate of citizens (not including automatic "citizens of those who come here illegally) is high enough to add anything much to the increase in population numbers.

Thus here is evidence that illegals are *contributing* to bankrupting California.
They are not the sole cause but in addition to the liberal government programs that exist and are expanded on State and National levels we have a state that appears to be ready to implode and declare bankruptcy.

I have no problem confiscating 90% if all the wealth of all liberals in show business to pay down the debt.
3576  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: January 11, 2010, 09:51:16 AM
"PS:  I think the fact that white American voted for BO had a very powerful effect on black America's perception of white America that has the potential for a deep paradigm shift."

Could you explain a little more detail what you mean?  I think I read you but could you clarify?

There is nothing more I, and I believe, all Republicans would like, than to have more Blacks come on board with us.
If only they would look at what I believe is the larger context rather than the quick "we'll give you quick cash and benes now" with the underlying but *unspoken* truth that you will become and thus remain OUR servants - meaning the Dem party and the government.

Why can't Blacks see themselves as field hands for governement?

Are there any Blacks on this board?

I hope I don't offend anyone but this seems to me a letigimate question.

3577  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: January 10, 2010, 06:10:09 PM
Answers to questions
That is why I am not for a strictly conservative platform.  I don't think it can win.  That is why I think strict conservatism/Reaganism is dead.  Some feel it was the cans trying to be democrats during the W years that did it.  Not strict conservative.
Perhaps they are right.  I really can't figure it all out.

It does give me some hope when i see some Blacks on Glenn Beck speaking about conservative values - how refreshing.
If only we could convince more of this group that they would be better off in the long run if they embrace this rather than let crats literally give their country away like they are doing.  I can only wonder that many Blacks are so engrained to "even" the score for past injustices that they are now (IMO) shooting themselves in the feet while they are trying to get even with Whites.

But I digress, and back to your points,

Yes Democrats are winning the war on demographics by confiscation and bribery.

It seems most of the world has been moving towards freedom and capitalism so I meant in those terms crats are on the wrong side.

But you are right, I may have miscontrued his point -
We in this country are now moving away from freedom and capitalism and  yes what Charles Blow claims appears to be true.  It appears the Cans are on the wrong side of the trends you point out.

Actually if Bama had his way he would abolishment the concept of *country* altogether and there would be one world government that would control everything and everybody.  And in his mind, ideally, he would be the ONE running it.

To me this is plainly obvious.  I don't know how many others either don't seem to get it or frankly simply agree with the "plan" and therefore he still maintains some degree of popularity.

3578  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Well the author is from the NYT on: January 09, 2010, 12:14:06 PM
I think the liberals are on the wrong side of history.  Have they ever heard of capatilism?  Democracy?  Freedom?

What makes this guy decide that socialism, gigantic control of every aspect of our lives by government, endless expansion of entitlements, giving up American soveriegnty is on the side of history?

These things were already tried and mostly failed.
3579  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The Power of Word on: January 09, 2010, 10:47:43 AM
My anger was meant for the writer not Rachel.
And yes - I made a logical conclusion the writer is a liberal.
I would be totally shocked if she wasn't.
I have had to hear this stuff from liberals all the time.

I believe it is this kind of rationalization that causes many of my fellow Jews to think it OK to believe in socialism.
And if they choose to do so then go ahead.

But I don't don't want it forced on me or this country.

I have liberal relatives that drive me crazy with their socialistic views.  It is no coincidence a couple of them are Federal government employees BTW.

I mean no offense to Rachel and I hope my "cyberage" if you want to call it that does not keep her from posting as I enjoy her posts.

That said I still believe in what I posted.  Now if the writer turns out to not be a liberal with a socialist bent I will apologize.  But till then.  And I would be shocked.
3580  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The Power of Word on: January 08, 2010, 02:03:58 PM
Thanks for your post.  This gives me the perfect opportunity to voice my fatigue with Jewish "do gooders".  I am sorry, but below IS how I feel. 

"She had found satisfaction in helping others Originally, she had hoped to have her paintings hanging in the Met, or her novels becoming bestsellers, but had ended up writing cookbooks read by thousands. But it wasn't the fame or fortune that brought her happiness. At the end of her introduction/personal history, she summed up a thought that rings true for humanity. She concluded that "to be of use, to have the opportunity to impart information and skills that serve to enrich people's daily lives – this is what matters most to me." Simply put, she had found satisfaction in helping others."

That's fine.  She dreamed and pursued her own fame and fortune and later decided this was not rewarding and than sought personal gratification helping others - I presume now that she is personally financially secure.

But why do liberal Jews think it wonderful to tax, confiscate and spend other people's monies to, in their deluded thinking, help the "poor" with ever increasing entitlements.

If one wants to get rich and later give it a way as a mitzvos that is "nice" and their right and privilege.  But when we start talking modern day versions of Karl Marx than as I've said before I part ways. 

I already work several months a year, toiling like a slave to have money confiscated and given away by liberals who use tax money to buy themselves votes.  I've had enough.  I am tired.

As for me they can shove their make love, and lets all be freinds and lovers, up their you know whats.

Many of these same people are pure hypocrits.  Others don't seem to mind they are hurting the lives of many for their perceived good deeds.

We part ways.

I can be a good person but I don't need to forced to be a F.. saint or a masochist.

Enough is enough.

Frankly such liberals have lost me.  Mitvohs my ass.

It's time to speak up and stick it back in the liberals faces before they destroy this country - if not too late.
3581  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: January 08, 2010, 11:45:40 AM
I don't know the name of the guy they have on Fox who is going around the country asking people if they are for the health care bill.
Most, if not all the people it seems who are for it appear to be students (who aren't yet in the real world toiling to pay for all these entitlements) or people who seem to think it will be free for them.
Yes "the govenernment" should provide health care to everyone.
"No one should be without this right".
"Well who else is going to pay for it if not the rich".

This is the mentality of what Republicans are up against.
This gigantic expectation of entitlements.  This gigantic sense that someone else should pay for it and these people will sit back and reap the benefits.

I don't know if there is a good answer to this.  Until there is the country will forever be divided between those who want all these things and others to pay for it, and those who do pay for it.

I couldn't believe Lou Dobbs was on OReilly saying we should grant some sort of amnesty to the illegals here since they and their children are already here.  Pay a fine, learn English, get on some path to citizenship.  I guess we are screwed. 
The thought of another 12 to 20 million mostly democrats who will continue the viscious cycle of entitlements.  And they were both saying we should cap the number of first degree relatives they will bring in with them at perhaps one or two -  OMG - now we are talkinga bout 24 to 60 million new people almost all crats!!  And we all know the crats are for big gov, big entitlements, and socialism in general.

It may already be too late.  I don't know.
3582  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Caution: phD on: January 08, 2010, 10:48:04 AM
When listening to medical advise from PhDs be careful.

Sometimes what they see in the labe does not jive with reality.
They are not the ones treating people.

Case in point:

"""Typical dose: One to two daily supplements (each containing 30 billion organisms), taken at the onset of diarrhea. Continue for one week after symptoms stop. To prevent antibiotic-related diarrhea, take the supplements during antibiotic therapy and for at least one week afterward.

Important: To ensure optimal effectiveness of the antibiotic, do not take it at the same time of day you are taking the probiotic.""""

So which is it?

It is amazing how the legaleze experts spend their careers going after pharm companies for a one in a million rare drug reaction yet we have all these know it alls all over the airwaves hawking their "natural" products with complete freedom to make all kinds of medical claims for cures to cancer, Alzheimers, prostate health, colon health, heart health, brain health, weight loss, sex health, joint health.  Most of it pure nonsense quakery and fraud to make a buck.

Yet that is ok .  But let a FDA approved drug turn out to cause a rare reaction and the response to that is outrage.

To me this is amazing.  Yet not a peep.

Hey the media makes billions from the advertising from these quacks.  So what do they care?

I am off my soap box.
3583  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Dogs are Gods gift for humanity. on: January 07, 2010, 02:13:35 PM
True story:
Both my wife Katherine and one of our three dogs have diabetes and are on insulin.

Yesterday my dog Buckwheat started shaking and having a hypoglycemic reaction.
Katherine fed her these dried chicken chips from the pet store and the dog soon seemed better.

Than Katherine started getting shakey and having a low blood sugar reaction.
Buckwheat ran and came back with a chicken chip and dropped it in Katherine's lap.

I love dogs.
3584  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government Programs, spending, budget process on: January 05, 2010, 10:38:42 AM
I have had a few people say they are being told more and more that people who supported Bama are now admitting they were wrong about him.

This is purely anecdotal but I hope the tide has turned.
3585  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: January 05, 2010, 10:36:01 AM
I must admit I have called Rush a blow hard and sometimes he is just that.

But I was worried when he was reportedly in the hospital.
The thought of losing him is the thought of losing this country to liberals.

I don't always agree with him but I feel that we need voices like him to preserve this country or we are lost.
As yet there are no politicians who can do what he does.  There is no one on the horizon who can help us get us back to where we are track to stay the greatest place on the planet.

Liberals are dead set on giving it all away - for votes. for power, for their own enrichment.
3586  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government Programs, spending, budget process on: January 05, 2010, 10:30:40 AM
I can only pray we get someone who is a spokesman for the Americans who are still probably slightly in the majority who have to pay for all this abuse of the "system" and hence them before they become the minority.  This critical tipping point seems nearer and nearer.

There is no question in my mind this is part of the grand design of the people who chose Bama as their One spokesperson.
Make no mistake he believes in this socialistic agenda fervently.
He only pretends to believe in the American just enough to hold onto power.

He is only coming out with a big mouth now on terrorism in words only and only precisely because he IS falling in the polls and he knows he is vulnerable on this.  Don't think for one second this guy is tough on terror.

But I think I preach to the choir here unfortunately. Except for Fox and talk radio this country is screwed.

3587  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / I just don't get it on: January 04, 2010, 12:27:36 PM
One in eight Americans now receives food stamps, including one in four children


But I just don't get it. 

We have illegals coming here by the millions and finding work and yet we have people who ?are Americans (some probably are also illegal) who claim they cannot find any job at all?

Why is this NEVER addressed by the mainstream propaganda media??

Yet we have foreigners going to our schools, getting Medicaid and Medicare - I think I know how they do it - the have relatives who come here and work or own businesses and they put their relatives on a payroll claiming payroll taxes and then later they get them Medicare.

Yet Americans cannot find a job.

And the liberal answers to everything.  Tax and give out more handouts.

3588  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War, WMD issues on: January 02, 2010, 11:45:49 AM
NYTimes.comReport an ErrorTimes Topics > People > I > Ivins, Bruce E.Sign in to Recommend
E-MAILBruce E. Ivins
Usamriid/ReutersBruce Ivins, 62, died of an apparent suicide on July 29, 2008, after learning that federal prosecutors were preparing to indict him on murder charges in the 2001 anthrax attacks that left five people dead.

To some of his longtime colleagues and neighbors, the charges against him marked a startling and inexplicable turn of events for a churchgoing, family-oriented germ researcher known for his jolly disposition.

For more than three decades, Dr. Ivans had worked with some of the world’s most dangerous pathogens and viruses, trying to find cures in case they might be used as a weapon.

Dr. Ivins, the son of a pharmacist from Lebanon, Ohio, who held a doctorate in microbiology from University of Cincinnati, spent his entire career at the elite, Army-run laboratory that conducted high-security experiments into lethal substances like anthrax and Ebola.


He turned his attention to anthrax — putting aside research on Legionnaire’s disease and cholera — after the 1979 anthrax outbreak in the Soviet city of Sverdlovsk, which killed at least 64 after an accidental release at a military facility.

Dr. Ivins was among the scientists who benefited from the post September 11 surge in federal funding for research on potential biological weapons, as 14 of the 15 academic papers he published since late 2001 were focused on possible anthrax treatments or vaccines. He even worked on the investigation of the anthrax attacks, although this meant that he, like other scientists at the Army’s defensive biological laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md., was scrutinized as a possible suspect.

Dr. Ivins and his wife, Diane Ivins, raised two children in a modest Cape Cod home in a post-World War II neighborhood right outside Fort Detrick, and he could walk to work.

He was active in the community, volunteering with the Red Cross and serving as the musician at his Roman Catholic church. He showed off his music skills at work, too, playing songs he had written about friends who were moving to new jobs.

In the weeks before his death, Dr. Ivins’ behavior became increasingly erratic. At a group counseling session at a psychiatric center he announced that he had bought a bulletproof vest and a gun as he contemplated killing his co-workers at the nearby Army research laboratory.

3589  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "state actor"? on: January 02, 2010, 11:40:45 AM
"state actor"

Does anyone know what he is talking about by this phrase?

Does this mean someone who works for the State Dept., the government in general, or an actor like J.W. Booth?

Their was a documentary about this case on one of the cable shows I don't remember which one regarding the suspect.
Colleagues and friends argued there was abosuletly no hint he was thinking along these lines.
The evidence was all circumstantial, and suggestive though not completely conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.

This guy should have had the same laywers falling all over themselves to defend the 911 bombers.
3590  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: January 01, 2010, 05:36:23 PM
Healthcare take-over

A doctor today told me heard that NJ has a new law that doctors must do some free charity care.
I don't know if it is true.

If I didn't have my problems with Katherine I would definitely leave the state if that were true.

Can anyone imagine a government edict to a single group of citizens telling them they either work for free or what?

Go to jail?  Lose your license to work in your profession?

Yet bankers are being given billions and obviously pilliging God knows how much of it. 
And I have to now pay for the cadillac care of union auto workers while I may be forced to work for free.

No one will feel sorry for doctors so I am not kidding myself thinking I would get any sympathy.

My point is let this be a warning for the rest of this country as to what Obama and Pelosi and the liberals have in store for them as well as us physicians.

I guess the only ones safe are lawyers, union members and Federal government employees.

3591  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The NEJM and abortion on: December 31, 2009, 10:46:21 AM

A topic close to your heart.
I think you can see in full bloom the liberal bias of a frequent contributer to NEJM.
Notice he cannot just give us the legal perspective but he has to shove at the end his true political bias.
Many of the public health people from the giant liberal "think tanks" of liberal academia are the true architects of this huge health care legislation that began 16 years ago and lied dorment while awaiting the right political moment to re-emerge its cancerous (IMHO) metastesis.  Liberals just cannot help themselves, they seem to have some disease that drives them to tell the rest of us what we ought to do.

Notice, not one comment about poor women should not be getting pregnant to start with just that it is their right to have taxpayers pay for their abortions.

Anyway it is people like this, behind the scenes who crafted the legislation.  I wonder how much this "humanitarian" makes?

***from the publishers of
the New England
Journal of Medicine
Abortion Politics and Health Insurance Reform
Posted by NEJM • December 2nd, 2009 • Printer-friendly
George J. Annas, J.D., M.P.H.

President Barack Obama has made it clear that he does not want abortion politics to sabotage health care reform. In his September 10 speech about health care to a joint session of Congress, he said, “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” Nonetheless, the centrality of abortion in U.S. politics makes it likely that abortion funding will play a major role in determining whether there is any health care reform law at all. The current abortion controversy concerns the Stupak amendment, whose presence or absence from the final bill may determine the votes of enough members of Congress to determine the outcome. This makes it critical to understand both this amendment and the current state of the law on federal funding for abortion.

The Stupak amendment provides that “No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act . . . may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest” (italics added).

The House passed this amendment by a vote of 240 to 194, with 64 Democrats voting in favor (the House health care bill itself passed 220 to 215). Many have blamed the Catholic bishops who lobbied fervently for passage of the Stupak amendment. More influential, however, has been the previously secret fundamentalist Christian political leadership group known variously as the Family or the Fellowship, which includes among its members both of the amendment’s main sponsors, Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joe Pitts (R-PA).1

The Stupak amendment has been defended as merely continuing the practice created by the Hyde amendment. That amendment, named after the late Congressman Henry Hyde (R-IL), which has been attached to every Health and Human Services Appropriations Act passed since 1976 (and has been added to appropriations legislation for the Defense Department, the Indian Health Service, and federal employees’ health insurance plans) prohibits the use of federal funding for “any abortion” or for any “health benefits coverage that includes abortion,” unless the pregnancy is the result of “rape or incest” or “would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.” Under the Hyde amendment, states may use their own funds to finance abortion services through their Medicaid programs, and 17 states currently do so.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the government funding question twice. The first case, in 1977, involved a Connecticut regulation that limited state Medicaid funding to “medically necessary” abortions, thus excluding those not necessary to preserve a woman’s life or health. The Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, but the state has no obligation to pay for the exercise of this right and may constitutionally encourage women to continue their pregnancies to term by providing funding for childbirth and not abortion. The state may not constitutionally create obstacles to abortion, but it has no obligation to remove obstacles, such as poverty, that are not of its own making.2

Three years after the Connecticut decision, the Court upheld the Hyde amendment, which prohibited federal funding for medically necessary abortions.3 Under this ruling, even low-income women who would have devastating health outcomes if they continued a pregnancy could not have an abortion paid for by Medicaid. In both cases, the Court ruled that the government could make “a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion and [implement] that judgment by the allocation of public funds.” There is no constitutional requirement for the federal government to fund any abortion. Federal funding is a political question to be addressed by Congress.

The current version of the U.S. Senate bill on health care reform, which Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) created by blending bills from two committees, does not contain the Stupak amendment but specifically excludes federal funding for abortions as prohibited by any federal law (including the Hyde amendment) that was in effect “6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.” States must also ensure that “no federal funds pay or defray the cost” of abortion services in new health plans that cover abortion. Moreover, states are required to offer at least two plans in the proposed health insurance exchanges (where most people who currently lack coverage will purchase insurance): one that covers abortion services and one that does not. Nonfederal funds for abortion coverage in any plan must be segregated, and payment must be made separately, in an amount estimated by the secretary of health and human services, to cover this benefit.

The primary promoters of the Stupak amendment in the Senate, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sam Brownback (R-KS), who is also a member of the Family,1 would not vote for a health care reform bill even if it outlawed federal payments for all abortions because both men object to more government involvement in health care. Since 51 votes would be required for the Senate to adopt the amendment, it seems unlikely that it will be added to the Senate bill.

Three major questions have been raised about the House and Senate approaches: Do they fulfill Obama’s no-federal-funding promise? Do they follow the Hyde amendment “tradition”? And do they represent good health insurance policy?

As for the first question, the Senate version fulfills the President’s promise by requiring abortion funding to come from sources other than federal tax dollars. This aspect of the provision has been denigrated as a “bookkeeping trick,” but all payments involve bookkeeping. Even federal employees who pay for abortions with their government salaries are using funds that came from federal tax dollars. As for the second question, the Stupak amendment goes far beyond the Hyde amendment by prohibiting the use of federal tax dollars not only for abortion itself but also for any health plan available on the proposed exchanges that covers abortion. The goal is to limit access to abortion, even when no federal funds are being used for it.

The third question relates to public health policy. The Hyde amendment institutionalizes the moral view of some members of Congress that even medically necessary abortions should not be considered health care. This view, for example, led Congress to criminalize an abortion procedure without an exception for the health of the pregnant woman.4 These are the types of federal government intrusions into health care that opponents of public insurance plans usually decry.

President Obama is nonetheless on solid political ground in leaving for another day the toxic issue of federal funding for abortions. Should the current Senate bill get to conference committee, the Senate conferees should insist that their abortion-funding–neutral language be adopted in the final bill. The House conferees are unlikely to object. The Stupak amendment cannot be fairly termed a health care bill because it further restricts funding, and voting against it seems to me a reasonable response from senators and representatives who support social justice and equality between the sexes.***
3592  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / limerick on: December 30, 2009, 06:48:40 PM
There once was a Muslim from Nigeria
Who for fun joined Al Queda
He loved to kill Americans for sport
So he got right through the airport
With a bomb in his shorts
The dynamite fizzled
His testicles sizzled
And instead of a fundamentalist hero
He wound up a jailed zero.

There once was a man named Osama
Who had a good friend named Obama
The former sinned
The latter grinned
And the ACLU winned
The former drinks moletovs
The latter drinks beer
And Americans lived in fear
Our hero Biden
Came out of hiden
First to go thru a scanner
Our enemies cheered with laughter
At his latest gaffer
In Uncle Sam has never before
A leader not known the score
We will all wind up dead or poor.

3593  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / DINO on: December 28, 2009, 11:34:21 AM
This is the first time I heard this.  DINO - RINO we have - next is LINO (Libertarian in name only) - AINO - (American in name only) - OREO (we already know this one).

 OPINION: DECLARATIONS DECEMBER 26, 2009 'He Just Does What He Thinks Is Right' By PEGGY NOONAN
Cannon to the left of him, cannon to the right of him, cannon in front of him volley and thunder. That's our president's position on the political battlefield now, taking it from all sides. And the odd thing, the unique thing in terms of modern political history, is that no one really defends him, no one holds high his flag. When was the last time you put on the radio or TV and heard someone say "Open line Friday—we're talking about what it is we like best about Barack Obama!" When did you last see a cable talking head say, "The greatness of this man is as obvious as it is unnoticed"?

Is the left out there on the Internet and the airwaves talking about him? Oh, yes. They're calling him a disappointment, a sellout, a DINO—Democratic in name only. He sold out on single-payer health insurance, and then the public option. He'll sell you out on your issue too.

The pundits and columnists, dreadful people that they are, call him cold, weak, aloof, arrogant, entitled.

So let's denounce him again.

Wait—it's Christmas. Let's not. There are people who deeply admire the president, who work with him and believe he's doing right. This week, this column is their forum. They speak not for attribution to avoid the charge of suckupism.

We start with a note from an accomplished young man who worked with Mr. Obama on the campaign and in the White House. He reminded me this week of a conversation we'd had shortly before the president's inauguration. "I remember you asked me back in January if I loved my guy. And in light of all that's happened in this first year, I still do. Even more so. And I also have a strong sense—based not just on polls but on a lot of folks I've talked to who don't always pay attention to politics—that he DOES have that base of people who still love him too.

"It's hard to detect, because the part of the 'base' that's represented on cable and on blogs is so vocal (and by vocal I mean shrill), but it's there. I also read it in the letters he gets. Some of them are amazingly poignant and appreciative of what he's done and what he's doing. Some of them are tough—very tough—but still respectful and hopeful that he's doing the right thing. Even if they're unsure right now, they want him to succeed. . ."

He sees them as a kind of quiet majority, or at least quiet-but-large-group-within-the-electorate.

"[T]hey're not going to run out and defend him on the blogs or start screaming back at his detractors, because they know its fruitless and they're sick of all that Washington nonsense anyway." They want him to cut through the mess and "get things done for them. And they're willing to give him that chance. Still."

The president, he suggested, tends toward the long view and the broad view. "Here's what I know about him. He still has this amazing ability to tune out the noise from Washington, read the letters from the people, listen to their concerns, listen to his advisors, hear both sides, absorb all the information, and make the decision that he honestly feels is right for the country."

He does this "without worrying too much about the polls, without worrying too much about being a one-term president. He just does what he thinks is right. And that consumes a lot of his time. Most of it, in fact."

He is aware that Obama is "perceived as alternately too weak and too Chicago, too left and too right, too willing to compromise and too beholden to his majority, too detached and too much meddling in too many things." The administration needs "to do better in resetting the story and telling it the way we want it told." But "the fractured, petty, biased-towards-the-sensational media today makes that more difficult than ever before."

He knows now, he said, "how the Bushes and the Clintons must have felt," and wonders "if that just happens to all White Houses. I don't know. But I do know that we have some very big, very unique problems right now. And we live in a very cynical . . . time where it's difficult to maintain the benefit of the doubt as you're navigating through the storm." They're giving it their best. "Lots of good people are trying. We won't fix it all, but I think we'll succeed (and think that in some cases, we already have!) at fixing a good deal."

Another staffer spoke warmly of President Obama's warmth. "He's interested in who you are, and it's not manufactured." He sometimes finds himself briefing the president before events. "I know he's just come out of a meeting on Afghanistan" and maybe the next meeting isn't as important, but he wants to know who they are and where they're from and has a gift for "making them feel important."

"He's a young president, young in terms of youthful." Sometimes people come in to meet him and find "they came for a photo and he gives them a game" of pick-up basketball on the White House court. "Those are the things from a human perspective that make him so accessible. Accessible is the right word. He's emotionally available."

He is appreciative of his staff's efforts. "When you're working hard for your country and you know [he cares] it is huge." How does he show his thanks? "It's a little like a basketball game—'Thanks for that, I know what you did.' It's not a note or a pat or a call, it's a guy-to-guy thank you, 'That's cool, that's good.' You think, 'My coach got that I worked my ass off.'"

"As a person he is just an incredible human being who you can't help but love."

A third Obama staffer spoke of last week's senior staff dinner, at which the president went around the table and told each one individually "what they meant to him, and thanked the spouses for putting up with what they have to put up with." He marks birthdays by marching in with cakes. He'll walk around the White House, pop into offices and tease people for putting their feet on the desk. "Sometimes he puts his feet on the desk." He's concerned about much, but largely unruffled. "He's not taken aback by the challenges he has. He seems more focused than he's ever been. He's like Michael Jordan in that at the big moments everything slows down for him." He's good in the crunch.
I end with a story told to me by an old Reagan hand who, with another former Reagan administration official, was being given a private tour of the White House by Michelle Obama. This was last summer. Mrs. Obama led the two through the halls, and then they stopped by the Lincoln bedroom. They stood in the doorway, and then took a step inside, but went no deeper. Everything looked the same, but something was different. "We don't allow guests to stay in this room anymore," Mrs. Obama explained. She spoke of it as a place of reverence. They keep it apart, it's not for overnights.

Unspoken, but clearly understood by the Reagan hands, was: This is where he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. A true copy of it is here, on the desk. He signed it: "Abraham Lincoln." The Reagan hands were impressed and moved. It is fitting and right that the Lincoln bedroom be held apart. It always should have been. Good, they thought. Good.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A11
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
3594  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: December 24, 2009, 11:25:50 AM
Maybe this is why Schwarzenegger is sucking up to history's greatest human being:

Seeks Obama’s Help for Deficit Relief (Update3) Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
By Michael B. Marois and William Selway

Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) -- California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, anticipating a $21 billion budget deficit, plans to ask President Barack Obama to ease mandates and minimums on social programs to save as much as $8 billion.

The Republican governor plans to seek the relief, according to a California official who asked not to be identified because details haven’t been resolved. Instead of seeking one-time stimulus money or a bailout, the most-populous state wants the U.S. to reduce mandates and waive rules stipulating expenditures on programs such as indigent health care, the official said.

California is among states most affected by the economic recession. It has the lowest credit rating and recorded the nation’s second-highest rate of home foreclosures, trailing only Nevada. Unemployment peaked at 12.5 percent in October amid the loss of 687,700 jobs from the year before, when the jobless figure was 8 percent. Wealth declined as the stock market lost 40 percent of its value in 2008.

The White House is aware of news reports about a request from California but didn’t have any details or comment, said Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s communications director.

“The problem is that there are no easy solutions left,” said Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, a Sacramento-based research group concentrating on issues facing the poor. “Where do you go to cut that doesn’t permanently compromise the level of public services that this state needs to remain economically competitive and to have some semblances of a safety net left for vulnerable populations.”

Taxes and Cuts

Schwarzenegger and lawmakers worked to close a record $60 billion gap from February through July with $32 billion in spending cuts, $12.5 billion of temporary tax increases, $8 billion of federal stimulus money and more than $6 billion of other one-time fixes.

California’s deficits show how local governments are being forced to chose between raising taxes or cutting more funding for schools, health care and other programs, even as the economy is emerging from the recession that began in December 2007. The nascent recovery has yet to produce any job gains, a drag on states that rely on income and retail sales taxes.

Nationally, 35 states and Puerto Rico expect to have $56 billion less next year than they will need to pay for all of their programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In Nevada, Arizona and New Jersey, the difference amounts to more than one-quarter of their budgets, the conference said. Funds from the $787 billion federal economic stimulus bill enacted in February run out at the end of next year.

Last Chance

Schwarzenegger, 62, will detail his request for help when he delivers his annual State of the State address on Jan. 6 and unveils his budget on Jan. 8, his last chance to reshape California’s fiscal policies before he leaves office in January 2011 after seven years.

This time, Schwarzenegger’s arsenal of one-time accounting maneuvers he and lawmakers have previously used to temporarily paper over parts of the gap -- such as accelerating income-tax collections -- has been mostly depleted, making efforts to erase the latest $21 billion deficit more difficult.

The state also has struggled to implement cost-cutting measures that were part of the $85 billion spending plan approved in July. Courts blocked part of the budget that cut funding for home care for the disabled and another part that borrowed $800 million from an account that sets aside money for local transportation agencies.

‘Low-Hanging Fruit’

An accounting error means the state has to spend almost $1 billion more on schools than budgeted. Officials also underestimated the cost of health care for the poor by $900 million, and lawmakers failed to pass legislation to realize $1 billion less in anticipated prison spending.

Combined, the state faces a $6.3 billion gap in the current year and another $14.4 billion in the next.

“We’ve already gone after the low-hanging fruit and the medium-hanging fruit and the higher-hanging fruit, so it’s going to get tougher and tougher now to balance the budget,” Schwarzenegger told reporters in November.

The governor has said he won’t increase taxes again to close the gap. That means more cuts, complicated by mandated expenditures for programs such as Medicaid health-care for low- income residents. With reductions already made to programs for the poor, additional trims jeopardize those federal funds.

Biggest Issuer

“In terms of programmatic reductions, we have to keep an eye on the fact that in some areas -- be it education or health and human services -- if you run afoul of federal maintenance of efforts requirements, you risk the loss of federal dollars,” said Schwarzenegger’s budget spokesman, H.D. Palmer. “As tough as 2009, these factors are going to make 2010 even more challenging.”

The state was the biggest bond issuer this year, selling $36 billion of debt. It may come to market with at least $5 billion more of public-works obligations in the fiscal year that begins July 1, state Treasurer Bill Lockyer said.

California’s general-obligation debt rating from Moody’s Investors Service is Baa1, the company’s eighth-highest investment grade, and A from Standard & Poor’s, the sixth- highest. By comparison, Greece, the poorest member of the 16- nation euro region, is rated two steps higher at A2 by Moody’s and two lower at BBB+ by S&P.

“California, which is more than three times bigger than Greece, is running out of money,” T.J. Marta, chief market strategist at Marta On The Markets LLC, a financial-research firm in Scotch Plains, New Jersey, told Bloomberg Radio today.

Higher Interest Rates

A Standard & Poor’s/Investortools index of California state and local debt has returned 13.1 percent this year through Dec. 23, about 1.5 percentage points less than the national average.

Investors have demanded higher interest rates from California, compared with other borrowers. The state’s 10-year bonds yielded 4.6 percent by the end of last week, 1.51 percentage points more than top-rated municipal borrowers, according to Bloomberg indexes. Three months ago, that difference was as little as 1.06 percentage points. Greek 10- year bonds yield 5.72 percent, Ireland’s 4.78 percent and Spain’s 3.93 percent.

In California, “it’s never a quick budget, it’s always prolonged and when it’s prolonged the headlines get worse and spreads widen,” said Peter Hayes, who oversees $115 billion in municipal bonds for New York-based BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset manager.

Opposition to Cuts

Democrats, who control both chambers of the Legislature, are expected to oppose wholesale cuts to health and welfare programs. Such resistance, along with Republican opposition to tax increases, will be exacerbated as election-year politics heightens the partisan divide. Half of the state’s 120 Assembly and Senate seats go before voters in November.

Budgets and tax increases in California must be approved by a two-thirds majority, and Democrats are two votes short in the Senate and six in the Assembly.

“When you are looking at a deficit in the size we have, everything needs to be on the table,” Assembly Speaker Elect John Perez, a Democrat from Los Angeles, told reporters on Dec. 11. “The reality is that the likelihood of passing taxes in this environment is slim, but everything has to be on the table. We have to come up with a resolution to this budget crisis that asks everyone to sacrifice, not just the people that are in the greatest need.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Michael B. Marois in Sacramento at; William Selway in San Francisco at

Last Updated: December 24, 2009 11:49 EST
3595  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: December 23, 2009, 05:01:13 PM
"Logic is the dominant modality in only 10% of the population whereas, IIRC, emotion is the dominant modality for LOTS more people"

This would certainly explain the continued undying blind support for Obama from American Blacks.

I cannot understand their continued support for a man who is giving away their country just when at the same time proved they can reach the top if they want to.

Why do they support a party that is more interested in giving away our benefits to those who are recent and illegal arrivals as opposed to those who came here legally or are the descendants of those brought here in chains?

The Rebublican party needs to see this opening.  They need to show Blacks the bigger picture.  Forget exponentially increasing Black reliance on government.  Obama is doing more damage to Blacks by hurting their country, by increasing their reliance on doles than any conservative.

The One gives us the lines about education, about self reliance all the while promoting just the opposite.  That is because it is not about American Blacks.  For Obama it is about leading the world.  It is about socialism, one government, one leader, total world control.  He is the greatest megalomaniac since I don't know when.  Hitler?  Napolean?  Ghengis Khan?  Alexander?

I guess the difference is soft vs military force.  Not just soft tyrrany but "soft" world domination.
3596  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty on: December 23, 2009, 04:45:45 PM
This is utterly remarkable.
The guy Bama is not our President working in the best interests of us.
He is a Manchurian President though he is well aware of what he is doing selling the US down the river unlike the movie wherein the guy's mind was controlled by outside forces.
3597  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: December 22, 2009, 04:05:25 PM
I lived in Boca for two and a half years.
One estimate was it was 70% Jewish.

I've seen Santa at Toojays in the off season.
How do you think he got that belly. smiley
3598  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / myhrovolds-to save the world?or our economy? on: December 22, 2009, 02:41:16 PM
What a nightmare for the libs!

For those who don't read drudgereport.  Acually Myhrvold was discussing this on Fareed Zakaria this past weekend.  Fareed asked him, so why is pumping sulfur into the atmosphere "good for us"?   Here is the theory.  Libs will trample all over themselves trying to shoot this down but it could (if it worked) completely negate any urgency to do cap and trade or any other unilateral disarming byt the "Bamas" (my new name for the radical libs, left, progressives or whatever name they change it to of the day).
3599  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: December 22, 2009, 01:35:34 PM
"Reid was buying the votes of senators whose understanding of the duties of representation does not rise above looting the nation for local benefits."

I assume some are looking at the Supreme Court angle at this.  Usurping some State's rights to buy off representatives from other states.

****Obama's dubious ‘wins’ in Copenhagen and Congress

By George Will | It was serendipitous to have almost simultaneous climaxes in Copenhagen and Congress. The former's accomplishment was indiscernible, the latter's was unsightly.

It would have been unprecedented had the president not described the outcome of the Copenhagen climate change summit as "unprecedented," that being the most overworked word in his hardworking vocabulary of self-celebration. Actually, the mountain beneath the summit — a mountain of manufactured hysteria, predictable cupidity, antic demagoguery and dubious science — labored mightily and gave birth to a mouselet, a 12-paragraph document committing the signatories to . . . make a list.

A list of the goals they have no serious intention of trying to meet. The document even dropped the words "as soon as possible" from its call for a binding agreement on emissions.

The 1992 Rio climate summit begat Kyoto. It, like Copenhagen, which Kyoto begat, was "saved," as Copenhagen was, by a last-minute American intervention (Vice President Al Gore's) that midwifed an agreement that most signatories evaded for 12 years. The Clinton-Gore administration never submitted Kyoto's accomplishment for ratification, the Senate having denounced its terms 95 to 0.

Copenhagen will beget Mexico City next November. Before then, Congress will give "the international community" other reasons to pout. Congress will refuse to burden the economy with cap-and-trade carbon-reduction requirements and will spurn calls for sending billions in "climate reparations" to China and other countries. Representatives of those nations, when they did not have their hands out in Copenhagen grasping for America's wealth, clapped their hands in ovations for Hugo Chavez and other kleptocrats who denounced capitalism while clamoring for its fruits.

The New York Times reported from Copenhagen that Barack Obama "burst into a meeting of the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian leaders, according to senior administration officials. Mr. Obama said he did not want them negotiating in secret." Naughty them. Those three nations will be even less pliable in Mexico City.

At least the president got a health-care bill through the Senate. But what problem does it "solve" (Obama's word)? Not that of the uninsured, 23 million of whom will remain in 2019. Not that of rising health-care spending. This will rise faster over the next decade.

The legislation does solve the Democrats' "problem" of figuring out how to worsen the dependency culture and the entitlement mentality that grows with it. By 2016, families with annual incomes of $96,000 will get subsidized health insurance premiums. Nebraska's Ben Nelson voted for the Senate bill after opposing both the Medicare cuts and taxes on high-value insurance plans — the heart of the bill's financing. Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln, Indiana's Evan Bayh and Virginia's Jim Webb voted against one or the other. Yet they support the bill. They will need mental health care to cure their intellectual whiplash.

Before equating Harry Reid to Henry Clay, understand that buying 60 Senate votes is a process more protracted than difficult. Reid was buying the votes of senators whose understanding of the duties of representation does not rise above looting the nation for local benefits. And Reid had two advantages — the spending, taxing and borrowing powers of the federal leviathan, and an almost gorgeous absence of scruples or principles. Principles are general rules, such as: Nebraska should not be exempt from burdens imposed on the other 49 states.

Principles have not, however, been entirely absent: Nebraska's Republican governor, Dave Heineman, and Republican senator, Mike Johanns, have honorably denounced Nebraska's exemption from expanded Medicaid costs. The exemption was one payment for Nelson's vote to impose the legislation on Nebraskans, 67 percent of whom oppose it.

Considering all the money and debasement of the rule of law required to purchase 60 votes, the bill the Senate passed might be the only bill that can get 60. The House, however, voted for Rep. Bart Stupak's provision preserving the ban on public funding of abortions. Nelson, an untalented negotiator, unnecessarily settled for much less. The House also supports a surtax on affluent Americans and opposes the steep tax on some high-value health insurance plans. So to get the bill to the president's desk, the House, in conference with the Senate, may have to shrug and say: Oh, never mind.

During this long debate, the left has almost always yielded ground. Still, to swallow the Senate bill, the House will have to swallow its pride, if it has any. The conference report reconciling the House and Senate bills will reveal whether the House is reconciled to being second fiddle in a one-fiddle orchestra.****

3600  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "Lincoln weeps" on: December 22, 2009, 11:11:23 AM
"President Obama acknowledged this in April, when asked by a European reporter if he believes in American exceptionalism. The president's response: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
This is a longer more confusing way to simply say NO, I do not believe in American exceptionalism.

To think our own President would be able to say such a thing.  And get elected to power.  To stay in power.  To have a media that adores him.

It is all so incomprehensible to me.

Lincoln is not the only one weeping.  So do I and many Americans.  Is there enough of us left who care?

Who is the ONE that can save this country from a Manchurian candidate hell bent on destroying it?

The attempt to extend Medicare to those 55 and older, the closing of the "donut" hole is the most cynical disgusting way of trying to bribe back seniors who have been more and more as evidenced by polls dropping support of the ONE.

LIke I learned from my own personal ordeals there just is no one who cannot be bribed.  Even our own countrymen will be most happy to give away our future for a dole.

Not only do my personal travails make me weep, I have to watch the same thing happen to America.

And Obama is NOT honest.  Occasionally he lets slip out his true feelings.  The rest is just a gigantic con.

Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 93
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!